DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In accordance with MPEP 2106.04, each of claims 1-8 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong 1 per MPEP 2106.04(a)
Each of claims 1-8 recites at least one step or instruction for determining, issuing, generating or outputting a control variable, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) or a certain method of organizing human activity in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) or mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
Accordingly, each of claims 1-8 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, claims 1, 6 and 8 recite the abstract ideas of:
generating an output signal from received setpoints and values and variables (claims 1 and 6);
generating and outputting a penalty term (claim 8);
determining a powershift reserve (claims 1, 6 and 8);
determining or generating a control variable (claims 1, 6 and 8);
issuing or outputting the control variable (claims 1, 6 and 8) which are observations, judgments or evaluations, and which are grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Claims 1, 6 and 8 additionally recite the additional elements of:
a control unit (claims 1 and 6);
a powershift reserve module (claims 1 and 6);
an engine data processor (claim 6);
Further, dependent claims 2-5 and 7 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the claimed functions/steps are performed.
Accordingly, as indicated above, each of the above-identified claims recites an abstract idea as in MPEP 2106.04(a).
Step 2A, Prong 2 per MPEP 2106.04(d)
The above-identified abstract idea in each of independent claims 1, 6 and 8 (and their respective dependent claims 2-5 and 7) is not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d) because the additional elements (identified above in independent claims 1, 6 and 8), either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use according to MPEP 2106.05(h). More specifically, the additional elements of: a control unit, a powershift reserve module and an engine data processor are generically recited computer elements in independent claims 1, 6 and 8 (and their respective dependent claims) which do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a). Nor do these above-identified additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine according to MPEP 2106.05(b), effect a transformation according to MPEP 2106.05(c), provide a particular treatment or prophylaxis according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e). Furthermore, the above-identified additional elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer in accordance with MPEP 2106.05(f). For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent claims 1, 6 and 8 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(d).
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(d) because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea (e.g., mental process and certain method of organizing human activity) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer (e.g., control unit, module, processor, data interface, data memory, as claimed). In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer according to MPEP 2106.05(f). Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims according to MPEP 2106.05(a). That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent claims 1, 6 and 8 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d)(I).
Accordingly, independent claims 1, 6 and 8 (and their respective dependent claims) are each directed to an abstract idea according to MPEP 2106.04(d).
Step 2B per MPEP 2106.05
None of claims 1, 6 or 8 include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea in accordance with MPEP 2106.05 for at least the following reasons.
These claims require the additional elements of: a control unit (claims 1 and 6);
a powershift reserve module (claims 1 and 6);
an engine data processor (claim 6).
The above-identified additional elements are generically claimed computer components which enable the above-identified abstract idea(s) to be conducted by performing the basic functions of automating mental tasks. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) along with Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Per Applicant’s specification, the engine data processor 1 and its units, blocks and modules such as the powershift reserve module and the controller 3, corresponding to a control unit, can be implemented as generic hardware, software or a combination of both. Figure 1 of the drawings shows each of the additional elements which are depicted only schematically without structure.
Accordingly, in light of Applicant’s specification, the claimed terms module, processor and control unit are reasonably construed as a generic computing devices. Like SAP America vs Investpic, LLC (Federal Circuit 2018), it is clear, from the claims themselves and the specification, that these limitations require no improved computer resources, just already available computers, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Furthermore, Applicant’s specification does not describe any special programming or algorithms required for the module, processor or control unit. This lack of disclosure is acceptable under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) since this hardware performs non-specialized functions known by those of ordinary skill in the computer arts. By omitting any specialized programming or algorithms, Applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in the computer industry or arts. In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the above-identified additional elements because it describes these additional elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)(2) and 2106.07(a)(III)). Adding hardware that performs “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible (TLI Communications along with MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)).
The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations in claims 1, 6 and 8 amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Simply using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f) along with Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(a) along with McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, per MPEP 2106.05(a), the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution.
For at least the above reasons, the apparatus and method of claims 1-8 are directed to applying an abstract idea as identified above on a general purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself or providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field according to MPEP 2106.05(a), or (ii) providing meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e).
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements in independent claims 1, 6 and 8 (and their dependent claims) do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment according to MPEP 2106.05(h). When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment according to MPEP 2106.05(h). When viewed as whole, the above-identified additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e). Moreover, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity according to MPEP 2106.05(g). As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application as required by MPEP 2106.05.
Therefore, for at least the above reasons, none of the claims 1-8 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, claims 1-8 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen (US Patent Application Publication 2020/0369284).
Regarding claim 8, Chen discloses a computer-implemented method for setting a powershift reserve for an internal combustion engine, the computer-implemented method comprising the steps of:
receiving at least one torque-limiting operating limit value, a powershift reserve setpoint, an operating variable, and a torque setpoint [0059: “A mass flow rate of air flowing into the intake manifold 110 may be measured using a mass air flow (MAF) sensor 186”; 0064, 0066: “The ECM 114 generates the target values for the engine actuators to cause the engine 102 to generate a target engine output torque. The ECM 114 generates the target values for the engine actuators using model predictive control, as discussed further below…The driver torque module 202 may determine a driver torque request 254 based on a driver input 255 from the driver input module 104. The driver input 255 may be based on, for example, a position of an accelerator pedal and a position of a brake pedal”; 0050, 0072, 0076: “In general terms, the difference between the immediate torque request 258 and the (generally higher) predicted torque request 257 can be referred to as a torque reserve…Using these actuators as an example, a torque reserve can be created by setting the throttle opening to a value that would allow the engine 102 to produce the predicted torque request 257. Meanwhile, the spark timing can be set based on the immediate torque request 258…[a]lthough the throttle opening generates enough air flow for the engine 102 to produce the predicted torque request 257, the spark timing is retarded (which reduces torque) based on the immediate torque request 258. The engine output torque will therefore be equal to the immediate torque request 258”; 0087: “The reserves/loads module 220 may increase the adjusted predicted torque request 263 while leaving the adjusted immediate torque request 264 unchanged to produce the torque reserve”; thus for example the spark timing is a torque-limiting operating limit value, a driver torque request is a torque setpoint, a mass air flow is an operating variable and a powershift reserve setpoint is received from the predicted torque request];
determining a powershift reserve for the at least one torque-limiting operating limit value [0072, 0076: “In general terms, the difference between the immediate torque request 258 and the (generally higher) predicted torque request 257 can be referred to as a torque reserve…Using these actuators as an example, a torque reserve can be created by setting the throttle opening to a value that would allow the engine 102 to produce the predicted torque request 257. Meanwhile, the spark timing can be set based on the immediate torque request 258…[a]lthough the throttle opening generates enough air flow for the engine 102 to produce the predicted torque request 257, the spark timing is retarded (which reduces torque) based on the immediate torque request 258. The engine output torque will therefore be equal to the immediate torque request 258,” the predicted torque request is modified by the immediate torque request based on the at least one torque-limiting operating limit value to produce a powershift reserve];
generating and outputting a penalty term for correcting a deviation of the powershift reserve from the powershift reserve setpoint [0090-0091: “The torque requesting module 224 determines an air torque request 265 based on the adjusted predicted and immediate torque requests 263 and 264…Target values for airflow controlling engine actuators are determined based on the air torque request 265. More specifically, based on the air torque request 265, the air control module 228 determines a target wastegate opening area 266, a target throttle opening area 267, a target EGR opening area 268, a target intake cam phaser angle 269, and a target exhaust cam phaser angle 270”; 0107-0112: “The functions performed by the MPC module 312 can be generally described as follows. For k=1, . . . , N, N being in integer greater than one, do: (1) use the above equations and the feedback inputs 330 to obtain estimates of the states of the engine 102 at time k; (2) calculate optimal values for the target values 266-270 for the time k to minimize a cost function during the period from the time k to a future time k+p; and (3) set the target values 266-270 to the calculated optimal values for time k+1 only. Then return to (1) for the next control loop... More generally, the cost function depends on manipulated variables u, changes in the manipulated variables from the last control loop Δu, the controlled variables y, and constraint violation penalty variable ∈”]; and
generating and outputting at least one control variable for the internal combustion engine by taking into account the penalty term that has been issued [0107-0112, the MPC module generates the optimal values for the target values that minimize the cost function that includes the penalty term and outputs the target values for the current iteration of the control].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4 and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mezger (DE 10 2004 044 520 A1) in view of Ito (EP 1 484 492 A2).
Regarding claims 1-2, Mezger discloses an engine data processor for setting a powershift reserve for an internal combustion engine, the engine data processor comprising:
a control unit (25) structured and arranged to adhere to at least one torque-limiting operating limit value, the control unit including at least one control target [as shown in Figure 1, the control unit controls the engine throttle valve through setpoint value αdksol determined using a torque-limiting operating limit value, as discussed below];
a powershift reserve module (20, 65) structured and arranged for determining the powershift reserve for the at least one torque-limiting operating limit value, the powershift reserve module being structured and arranged to:
receive a torque setpoint (mifa), a powershift reserve setpoint (dmrkh), the at least one torque-limiting operating limit value, and at least one operating variable (n), wherein the at least one torque-limiting operating limit value includes at least one of a minimum air mass flow value, a minimum combustion air ratio value, a maximum pressure value, a maximum fuel mass flow value, a maximum exhaust gas emission value, a maximum exhaust gas temperature, and a maximum engine speed value [the torque reserve is limited if a maximum exhaust gas temperature at the catalyst exceeds its required operating temperature, thus the measured temperature is a torque-limiting operating limit value; 0013: “If the catalyst 60 is below its operating temperature, rapid heating is necessary to prevent unwanted exhaust emissions. For this rapid heating, a torque reserve must be provided, which is indicated by the dashed arrow in Fig. 1 and is required by the catalyst 60. The temperature of the catalyst 60 can be measured by a temperature sensor not shown in Fig. 1 and compared with the required operating temperature of the catalyst 60. If the measured temperature of the catalyst 60 is below the required operating temperature, the catalyst 60 requests a corresponding torque reserve from the engine control unit 15, which is necessary to heat the catalyst 60 from the measured temperature to the required operating temperature. This moment reserve is labelled dmrkh in Fig. 1. This torque reserve dmrkh can also be determined by the motor control unit 15. For this purpose, the engine control unit 15 only needs to be supplied with the measured temperature of the catalyst 60 from the temperature sensor not shown in Fig. 1, and the required operating temperature of the catalyst 60 must be known in the engine control unit 15”] [0014: “The requirement dm for the torque can originate from the unit 10 or, for example, correspond to the reserve torque dmrkh required for heating the catalyst 60”];
generate an output signal (rlsol) from the torque setpoint, the powershift reserve setpoint, the at least one torque-limiting operating limit value, and the at least one operating variable which have been received; and
issue the output signal to the control unit [0014: “In the first control unit 20, the driver's desired torque mifa is thus superimposed with the torque requirement dm, i.e. added to it, so that a first target torque milsol results at the output of the first control unit 20, where milsol = mifa + dm…The first target torque milsol is fed to a first characteristic map 65, which, depending on the first target torque milsol and at least one further operating parameter of the Otto engine 1, for example the engine speed n, determines a first target value rlsol for a filling of the combustion chamber of the cylinder block 50 in a manner known to the person skilled in the art”] [0014: “The first setpoint rlsol for the filling is supplied to an adjustment unit 25 of the function diagram 100”];
wherein the control unit is structured and arranged to:
adjust the at least one control target by taking into account the output signal, so that the powershift reserve corresponds with the powershift reserve setpoint [0014: “The first setpoint rlsol for the filling is supplied to an adjustment unit 25 of the function diagram 100, which also determines a first setpoint αdksol for the position of the throttle valve 5 from the first setpoint rlsol for the filling in a manner known to those skilled in the art and controls the throttle valve 5 to set this setpoint αdksol”].
Mezger does not disclose the control unit is structured and arranged to determine at least one control variable for the internal combustion engine and issue the at least one control variable for the internal combustion engine.
Ito discloses a fuel supply amount controller for an internal combustion engine (Title) wherein the fuel injection amount is calculated in accordance with an engine speed and a throttle opening degree [0070].
Ito teaches that determining the fuel injection amount as a control variable is appropriate for a gasoline engine, and results in a direct adjustment in the engine output torque [0070-0071].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the position of the throttle valve set by Mezger to determine the fuel injection amount as a control variable as disclosed by Ito because the injection amount directly determines the engine output torque in a gasoline engine.
Regarding claim 4, Mezger further discloses wherein the powershift reserve is structured and arranged as a torque shift reserve [0013: “If the measured temperature of the catalyst 60 is below the required operating temperature, the catalyst 60 requests a corresponding torque reserve from the engine control unit 15, which is necessary to heat the catalyst 60 from the measured temperature to the required operating temperature. This moment reserve is labelled dmrkh in Fig. 1”].
Regarding claims 6-7, Mezger discloses an internal combustion engine for providing mechanical power, the internal combustion engine comprising:
an engine data processor (15, 105) for setting a powershift reserve for an internal combustion engine, the engine data processor comprising:
a control unit (25) structured and arranged to adhere to at least one torque-limiting operating limit value, the control unit including at least one control target [as shown in Figure 1, the control unit controls the engine throttle valve through setpoint value αdksol determined using a torque-limiting operating limit value, as discussed below];
a powershift reserve module (20, 65) structured and arranged for determining the powershift reserve for the at least one torque-limiting operating limit value, the powershift reserve module being structured and arranged to:
receive a torque setpoint (mifa), a powershift reserve setpoint (dmrkh), the at least one torque-limiting operating limit value, and at least one operating variable (n) [the torque reserve is limited if a maximum exhaust gas temperature at the catalyst exceeds its required operating temperature, thus the measured temperature is a torque-limiting operating limit value; 0013: “If the catalyst 60 is below its operating temperature, rapid heating is necessary to prevent unwanted exhaust emissions. For this rapid heating, a torque reserve must be provided, which is indicated by the dashed arrow in Fig. 1 and is required by the catalyst 60. The temperature of the catalyst 60 can be measured by a temperature sensor not shown in Fig. 1 and compared with the required operating temperature of the catalyst 60. If the measured temperature of the catalyst 60 is below the required operating temperature, the catalyst 60 requests a corresponding torque reserve from the engine control unit 15, which is necessary to heat the catalyst 60 from the measured temperature to the required operating temperature. This moment reserve is labelled dmrkh in Fig. 1. This torque reserve dmrkh can also be determined by the motor control unit 15. For this purpose, the engine control unit 15 only needs to be supplied with the measured temperature of the catalyst 60 from the temperature sensor not shown in Fig. 1, and the required operating temperature of the catalyst 60 must be known in the engine control unit 15”] [0014: “The requirement dm for the torque can originate from the unit 10 or, for example, correspond to the reserve torque dmrkh required for heating the catalyst 60”];
generate an output signal (rlsol) from the torque setpoint, the powershift reserve setpoint, the at least one torque-limiting operating limit value, and the at least one operating variable which have been received; and
issue the output signal to the control unit [0014: “In the first control unit 20, the driver's desired torque mifa is thus superimposed with the torque requirement dm, i.e. added to it, so that a first target torque milsol results at the output of the first control unit 20, where milsol = mifa + dm…The first target torque milsol is fed to a first characteristic map 65, which, depending on the first target torque milsol and at least one further operating parameter of the Otto engine 1, for example the engine speed n, determines a first target value rlsol for a filling of the combustion chamber of the cylinder block 50 in a manner known to the person skilled in the art”] [0014: “The first setpoint rlsol for the filling is supplied to an adjustment unit 25 of the function diagram 100”];
wherein the control unit is structured and arranged to:
adjust the at least one control target by taking into account the output signal, so that the powershift reserve corresponds with the powershift reserve setpoint [0014: “The first setpoint rlsol for the filling is supplied to an adjustment unit 25 of the function diagram 100, which also determines a first setpoint αdksol for the position of the throttle valve 5 from the first setpoint rlsol for the filling in a manner known to those skilled in the art and controls the throttle valve 5 to set this setpoint αdksol”].
Mezger does not disclose the control unit is structured and arranged to determine at least one control variable for the internal combustion engine and issue the at least one control variable for the internal combustion engine, wherein the powershift reserve is provided by way of the at least one control variable which is output by the engine data processor.
Ito discloses a fuel supply amount controller for an internal combustion engine (Title) wherein the fuel injection amount is calculated in accordance with an engine speed and a throttle opening degree [0070].
Ito teaches that determining the fuel injection amount as a control variable is appropriate for a gasoline engine, and results in a direct adjustment in the engine output torque [0070-0071].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the position of the throttle valve set by Mezger to determine the fuel injection amount as a control variable as disclosed by Ito because the injection amount directly determines the engine output torque, and therefore would provide the powershift reserve, in a gasoline engine.
Claim(s) 3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mezger (DE 10 2004 044 520 A1) in view of Ito (EP 1 484 492 A2) and further in view of Chen (US Patent Application Publication 2020/0369284).
Regarding claim 3, Mezger, as modified by Ito, discloses the processor of claim 1 as discussed above but does not disclose wherein the engine data processor is structured and arranged such that the output signal includes a penalty term, which is included in the at least one control target of the control unit such that the powershift reserve corresponds to the powershift reserve setpoint.
Chen discloses an engine data processor that is structured and arranged to produce an output signal that includes a penalty term, which is included in at least one control target of a control unit of the engine data processor such that a powershift reserve corresponds to a powershift reserve setpoint [0091, 0112, the cost function minimizes the difference between a controlled variable and a desired setpoint value and includes penalty variable ε, where the controlled variable is a target throttle opening area determined based on an air torque request 265] [0072, 0090, 0102, 0104, the air torque request is a powershift reserve setpoint] [0129, the MPC module is a controller with a memory, input/output interface, processor, control logic, and the like].
Chen teaches that the penalty term limits the difference between a controlled variable setpoint and a steady-state actual value of the controlled variable so that the torque reserve approaches the calculated setpoint of the torque reserve [0021, 0072].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the penalty term disclosed by Chen with the output for the control target disclosed by Mezger to control the target throttle opening so that the difference between the powershift reserve and its setpoint is minimized.
Regarding claim 5, Mezger, as modified by Ito, discloses the processor of claim 1 as discussed above but does not explicitly disclose a setpoint data interface structured and arranged for receiving the powershift reserve setpoint and the at least one torque-limiting operating limit value, an operating variable data interface structured and arranged for receiving the at least one operating variable, and a data memory structured and arranged for reading out the torque setpoint.
Chen discloses a setpoint data interface structured and arranged for receiving the powershift reserve setpoint and the at least one torque-limiting operating limit value, an operating variable data interface structured and arranged for receiving the at least one operating variable, and a data memory structured and arranged for reading out the torque setpoint [0138-0139, each controller or module includes one or more interface circuits; as shown in Figures 1-2, controller 114 receives at least one operating variable via at least sensor 186 and includes control module 232 which receives at least one torque-limiting operating limit value and a torque requesting module 224 that receives a powershift reserve setpoint and a driver torque module 202 that receives a torque setpoint; 0140-0141, the controller includes a data memory for performing control functions].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to simply combine the interfaces and memory disclosed by Chen with the data processor disclosed by Mezger because these computing components would predictably function to perform input and output data transfer and data storage, respectively.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
should be directed to JOSHUA CAMPBELL whose telephone number is (571) 272-8215. The examiner
can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 9:00 AM – 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor,
Lindsay M. Low can be reached on (571) 272-1196. The fax phone number for the organization where
this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application
Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained
from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available
through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-
direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic
Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer
Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR
CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSHUA CAMPBELL/
Examiner, Art Unit 3747
/LOGAN M KRAFT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3747